During any deliberations on Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation (ADWF) all medical experts have stood quite firmly behind retaining fluoridation. This is quite understandable because benefits of fluoridation were strongly supported by Health Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association, and other similar professional certifying and controlling authorities in the areas of medical and dental practice.

An enormous amount of time and effort has been spent by Dr. Miloslav Nosal, M.Sc., Ph D., Chief Scientist, Statistical Consulting Co., on actual biostatistical analysis of all available up to date peer reviewed published research papers investigating the effects of fluoridation on human health and the statistical significance of their findings. As a matter of fact, the question of statistical significance may be the most important factor in any area when dealing with systems affected by a large degree of uncertainty.

In his analyses he found statistically significant detrimental effect of water fluoridation in several areas of human health, including bone biomechanical quality and fractures. Most striking were studies reporting statistically significantly increased rates of hip fractures among aging populations. This is obviously important factor with today’s increasing numbers of elderly residents of any City. Strangely enough, this issue has never entered most fluoride debates. Based on these findings, Dr. Nosal refused to support the majority findings of his colleagues supporting further fluoridation as recommended by a panel studying the issue in Calgary in 1998, and continues to object to such a measure either continuing or being implemented anywhere in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

Dr. Nosal states that “It is very difficult to appoint a truly impartial and ethically unbiased scientific panel, when investigating uncertainties related to politically and ethically, strongly charged major societal issues, particularly when the potential experts are unilaterally selected from a homogenous group tied together by similar vital interests, membership in controlling groups and associations, professional background and collegial allegiances. An extreme caution must be exercised in expert selection in order to guarantee true impartiality and required ethical unbiasedness. … controversies affecting the Alberta government appointed scientific panel on environmental issues of Athabasca Oil Sands Region clearly document seriousness of this problem.”

He continues with this train of thought by adding the following: “I consider the effect of fluoridation on significantly increased rates of hip fractures among aging populations as very troubling. However, this point” has continued to be discounted, most reports “stating only a weak association between fluoridation and bone fractures in studies… However, there have been many new studies since 1998 which should be analysed and their relevance to (the) problems assessed. There is also quite extensive new scientific evidence related to other effects of fluoridation on human health which should be analysed. Striking a balanced, impartial, and ethically unbiased panel to analyse and asses these new scientific findings may be a very good idea.”

So far, Dr. Nosal’s recommendation to striking a balanced panel of investigation in the matter of fluoridation continues to be ignored, as have been many such recommendations in fluoridating countries. Does that not indicate a certain amount of “bad faith” on the part of governments and authorities supporting fluoridation at the expense of public health?

Dr Arvind Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner in medicine has repeatedly said: “Fluoridation of water supplies would also treat people who may not benefit from the treatment. Side-effects cannot be excluded and, thus, some people might only have negative effects without any benefit.”

“In Sweden, water fluoridation, to my knowledge, is no longer advocated by anybody. In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances.”

Dr. Carlsson has affirmed that ADWF is “ridiculous and irresponsible.”